HPA effects to home suppressor build tinkerers?

[Tallbald]

I don't post here because I am a man of very modest means without resources to buy and enjoy the fun NFA items many here can themselves. I remain happy for those who can however! I enjoy reading and watching videos of those with the means and have had some wonderful afternoons at a periodic Louisville KY shoot over the years. My first one was in the early 1970's when a WW2 vet took a friend and me, both of us in our early teens, and we were allowed between firings to touch and shoulder the anti-tank cannons, select fire 12 gauge M16's the select fire .22 subguns etc. AND, we could go out on the range after volleys to examine shot up stuff. For years I used a peeled back recovered .50 BMG armor piercing slug as a center punch. Sadly, I declined the offer of a man to fire his 20mm cannon a time or two. Foolish youth!
Anyway. I digress. I've tried reading the proposed HPA and have very high hopes for its passage. So much quiet fun I could have.
But I suspect that suppressors shall remain a pricey accessory, or hard to find item for a while should HPA become law. Supply and demand.
Has anyone found in reading the proposed law how homemade suppressors would be treated under the HPA if it passes? I understand that under the proposal a suppressor would be treated as a firearm, requiring a 4473(?) and background check.
With so many options available for home built suppressors and the form 1 option for making one, would the HPA allow tinkerers to make suppressors themselves as a cost effective option? We have restrictive laws telling us barrel length, rifling requirements etc for firearms. Would the HPA have similar restrictions on suppressor builds?
Thanks so much, and I apologize in advance if this have been discussed already. I couldnt find a conversation about this subject. Don.

 

[pdsmith505]

Untill such a bill is brought to the floor for a vote, we won't actually know whats in it.

However, the intent of the HPA is to treat silencers like normal firearms. That woud imply that a person is free to build them for his own use.

 

[AlexanderA]

If the HPA passes (and that's a big if), suppressors would be treated like Title I firearms. As things stand now, you can make a Title I firearm for your own use without any formalities, provided it's OK under your state law. That would be extended to suppressors.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

If the HPA passes (and that's a big if), suppressors would be treated like Title I firearms. As things stand now, you can make a Title I firearm for your own use without any formalities, provided it's OK under your state law. That would be extended to suppressors.

They might not even be firearms under your state law whether they are legal or not.

Mike

 

[RPRNY]

Unless the tax element of the HPA is somehow done during budget reconciliation, even passing it in the House means nothing. There aren't 60 votes in the Senate.

 

[Ryanxia]

While I have my educated opinions on the likelihood of HPA passing, I won't comment because that was not the original question. As the others have stated, if HPA passes as is it they would be just like others regular firearms as far as the feds are concerned. Some States still won't allow them I think but most States (unless they pass their own laws) you will be able to build your own just like you can a regular firearm. We'll be able to throw an oil can on the end of a gun and call it a day.

 

[HankB]

I'm hopeful that IF the HPA is passed and IF it treats suppressors like ordinary firearms, we'll be able to make our own suppressors for personal use (not resale) without jumping through any hoops, at least as far as the Feds are concerned.

BUT . . . unless and until the HPA is actually passed and becomes law, we really don't KNOW what we will and won't be able to do on our own; we'll have to see what the law as enacted actually says. Anything we read or hear about it right now is speculation.

 

[Ryanxia]

Anything we read or hear about it right now is speculation.

While I agree it could change it isn't speculation it is the language of the proposed Bill that is currently in the committee stages in Congress. As long as they've been trying to get this Bill passed I don't see them making any major compromises. I'd say its safe to examine the Bill's current text while we sit around and wait (and contact our representatives).

 

[CapnMac]

There aren't 60 votes in the Senate.

There are D's who are pro gun, and more still from pro gun constituencies. It would only take 8 or 10 to pass this, and that in the face of any grandstanding. They did not expend any political capital ginning up fillibuster for Cabinet appointees (histrionics and emoting, surely, along which much bleating to the press).
And, that all depends upon this being argued as a stand alone bill, and not something tucked into other, needed legislation. So, iy's tought to call this cut and dried.

The issue for OP is that nothing has been said about the SOT which is applied. Just striking the suppressor section from Title II, would achieve part of the goal, but not neatly. Striking the SOT on suppressor builders would very much affect the market.

As, then, there'd be dozens of small shops spring up offering suppressors at every possible price point imaginable.

 

[Acera]

As, then, there'd be dozens of small shops spring up offering suppressors at every possible price point imaginable.

Exactly, where some are so cheap they are almost considered disposable. An expendable item. Kinda like how they are in some European countries now.




.

 

[RPRNY]

The Dems couldn't filibuster cabinet appointments. Under a Harry Reid rule change, the so-called "nuclear option" was adopted for non-SCOTUS appointments. They have however run the clock on cloture to delay most of the confirmation votes - pointless and petulant though that is.

I'm by no means infallible and firearms issues are hobby rather than profession but I count votes, or get advice from people who count votes, in the Senate every day. I think the GOP are 3-5 votes weak and there are only 3-4 Dems I'd count on for this vote. That means up to 10 votes short on cloture, so McConnell won't bring it to that.

That means budget reconciliation, simple majority, is about the only way to get it done.

 

[CapnMac]

I'm by no means infallible and firearms issues are hobby rather than profession but I count votes, or get advice from people who count votes, in the Senate every day. I think the GOP are 3-5 votes weak and there are only 3-4 Dems I'd count on for this vote. That means up to 10 votes short on cloture, so McConnell won't bring it to that.

That means budget reconciliation, simple majority, is about the only way to get it done.

That puts us both on the same page then.